How could an entire universe be created from nothing in a nanosecond. The answers will never be found. I believe anything is possible even a a creator creating the big bang. It would really be nice if there was some proof one way or the other.
I'm stuck in the middle.
This illustrates the prevalency of people who have not ever done science, read about science, and certainly do not understand science.
Everything is not possible. This is simply illogical. According to that lack of logic it is possible for God to exist and not to exist at the same time. Or it's possible for the Earth to be spherical and flat at the same time. Only that which is possible is, in fact, possible. But now to get to the important matter.
All the Big Bang really supposes is that, based upon observations, the universe is expanding uniformly. Based upon this, it was postulated that the matter in the universe must have had a common origin in the universe. It does not say where the matter came from or why it is here.
A lot of this confusion comes from the fact that the non-thinker still thinks that "every effect has a cause" and "every cause follows its effect" are profound statements. But, in fact, the notion that every effect has a cause is of little use in physics. Statements about cause and effect are made after the fact, but are of no use in learning anything about nature and constructing logical arguments about the way nature works.
Take, for example, the question "What causes a car or truck to move foward?" A perfectly "correct" answer to this question is "the force the foot applies to the accelerator."
Another example of the muddled thinking that arises as a direct result of the "cause and effect" notion of science is in the following proposition:
"Everything that happens in the universe has a cause. We know no exceptions. Therefore the universe itself must have had a cause, and that cause was God."
The absolutely amazing thing is that people who accept this proposition attempt to perpetuate it as a valid and profound argument. Even if, for arguments sake, we accepted the premise of this argument, it is a flawed extrapolation from what we know inside the universe to an object outside of the universe, independent of the universe, and apparently not bound by the same laws of the universe.
But, nevertheless, I've heard presumably intelligent and learned people present this argument as if it carried some significant intellectual weight.
The final phrase is a logical leap for even if we did establish the cause of the universe, by asserting it was the will of God is only assigning it a trivial name.
The reality of the situation is that for all we know the cause could be something else altogether, and we don't know and have no way to know.
There is yet another flaw in this fraudulent pseudo-argument. It presumes that based upon our incomplete and imperfect science one can extrapolate a cause that the person making the argument treats as an absolute truth.
This objection alone annihilates the basis of the arguments of the so-called creation scientists and intelligent design advocates.
But it quickly becomes worse. The non-thinkers who exaults the cause and effect notion in science presume that the cause precedes the effect in chronology. Yet, if the universe had a cause, everything in it and about it are effects of that cause. Even time is a cause. But how can time have a cause that existed before time itself existed?
This nonsense of "cause and effect" has pervaded discussions of origins and has single-handedly created myriad volumes of wasted words concerning such meaningless questions.